"Bernie Cosell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11 Dec 2001, at 21:54, Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
>> > 8. Fairness
>> >
>> > I think the key to a fair game is a really tight test program
>> > on day one (tsanta.pl had too many holes). It is ideal if you
>> > can just say "if it passes the test program, it is ok";
>> > that also eliminates ambiguity about the game's semantics
>> > and spares you from having to describe the semantics.
>>
>> I don't think that can be done. Some rules should have been a bit
>> clearer, but you can't foresee every loophole that will be used.
>>
>> I found the test program very useful, so as a referee I will make it
>> public at the start of the competition. However, programs that pass the
>> test program but have fatal effects (output to STDERR, fail for n>100
>> etc.) will be disqualified.
>
[...]
> I confess that all that together, I am still inclined to have the
> "official" description be the text one. And have it be the
> discretion of the judges whether a program violates the rules --- in
> this model of the world, the actual 'scoring program' would be
> *advisory*.
Absolutely. This is after all what happened this time 'round.
[...]
> And I think that with a good set of 'general rules' you'd be able to
> do very clear, intuitive and solid problem-descriptions in ordinary
> English. And then I think you should *not*reveal* the scoring
> program.
Disagree *really* strongly. Though I would strongly suggest that the
scoring program used by the judge should use a different/extended data
set compared to that which is made public.
> The program's behavior should be against the *description*
> of the problem it is to solve, _not_ against a [perhaps] programming
> error in the scoring program. If there's a question, it should be
> addressed to the judge [NOT to the scoring program source code] and
> the judge can make public an appropriate 'ruling' [that is,
> 'clarification' of either the rules or the particular problem].
I don't see how this is not compatible with making the scoring program
public. Bookkeeping is a pain in the arse, and it was really handy to
be able to chuck a solution at the tests to see if it worked. Sure I
could write my own test program but that would be duplicating effort
big time and I'd rather be spending my five days playing golf rather
than laying out and printing a score card.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
